if she runs and wins two terms .. we would possibly have 28 years of Bush's and Clinton's in the whitehouse out of a possible 36 years
You'll not find a greater opponent of Hillary's tactics in the primaries than I, but Obama found his way beyond them sufficiently to hire her at the highest level appointment he had to make. And she has excelled in the job as she has in every job she has held prior. She is also the most experienced person in government today and the one of the most varied experience. Moreover it is way past time for a woman president and she is our only strong prospect. I also want a real, true Democrat in office and she is, far and away, our strongest shot at that as well. She was also my top choice for the next cycle after Kerry before Obama stole my heart away at the 2004 convention, after which I was about him and only him for president. I do say F her, like you, still, for her words and deeds during the primaries. Those trespasses are neither forgotten nor forgiven by me. Still she has my whole-hearted support and I will work on her behalf and donate, as I did for Obama. And she, like Obama, will be an amazing president.
"For some reason." Hillary bears about as much responsibility for Benghazi as Bush did for 9/11, which is to say virtually none. Same goes for Obama and same definitely goes for Rice. Yes, there were warnings and calls for greater security. Just as Richard Clarke, a high level security operative in the Bush White House warned there was an impending attack by Al Qaeda/Bin Laden on the horizon and that it might involve flying planes into buildings. But threats come across presidents' desks all the time and they rely upon their intelligence agencies and military advisers to know which to address because they can't build an impenetrable dome over our country, our embassies, and each of our allies. It wasn't Bush's job to make sure nothing bad ever happened to or in the U.S. including its embassies and it wasn't Clinton's, Obama's, or Rice's either. Pushing this Benghazi stuff makes you no better than a 9/11 "truther."
Allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon and putting US-hostile regimes in place in the Middle East does not equal "excelling". Nor does leaving our ambassadors out to get killed. This alone is not a reason to hire/vote for somebody. You used the same logic when you wanted the first half white/half black president. The definition of racist behavior is making a judgment for/against someone, solely due to their skin color...
Obama had his hands tied and promised Hilary a Cabinet position to make sure her supporters didn't sway to McCain. It was a tactical move, nothing more. Regarding the '08 primaries, she came off as someone who would say or do anything to get elected. I don't trust her, and don't want her running the country. I think America needs to move beyond the Clinton/Bush families. There's a lot of talent out there, and we need some fresh blood. We'd be better off with an Andrew Cuomo, Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, or even Joe Biden at the helm.
The idea that Hillary supporters might have gone over to McCain was a GOP-fueled myth and a laughable one at that. I'm surprised you fell for it. You seem intelligent otherwise. Not to mention that the party had been successfully united and Obama elected before he selected his SoS. As for the rest of your post I can't really disagree (Patrick and Biden are the only ones liberal enough for me from your list though) except to say that women represent more than half of our society and we have had 44 presidents, all male. Until Obama each previous president has been white, male, and with the exception of some of our very first presidents Christian (the exception being many of our founding fathers, ones who were much closer to secular humanists). As of Obama we had one that was not white but was also a Christian male. When Hillary is elected we'll break the gender barrier and after that I hope we'll bust the religious one too. We need a Jewish president, we need an Hispanic president, we need a gay president, we need a Muslim president, we need an atheist president. We're running way behind on making the presidency a thing to which every American child can aspire. Only five years ago, there was a poll that ran here and pretty much everywhere else: Is America Ready For A Black President. IIRC, in none of those polls did the answer Yes win a majority. With such an incredibly qualified woman running (assuming she actually does), it's time to break that particular glass ceiling.
So you are saying she is a politician? That is going to be true of most candidates. Everybody succumbs to lying and negative attacks because the other side is going to use the same crap, which leads to a vicious cycle.
Unfortunately, I think this is the most likely assessment. Notwithstanding that females generally have a longer life expectancy than men, I think her advanced age and health will be the determining factors.
I had a discussion about this (among other flaws with our system) last week. If the US, with that track record and the whole crazy system of electoral votes, was a Middle Eastern country, we'd be criticized for not being a democracy.
Still disagree on the primaries. Female voters were pissed at Obama after he owned Hillary. That demographic was critical in '08, and Obama didn't want to take any chances there, hence the back office dealings for the endorsement. More importantly, though was Clinton's behavior with the Rev Wright crap and what not. I know you want a woman, but Hillary's not it.
I voted for Obama twice and seeing what has happened over the last 4 and a half years I always wonder what kind of job Hillary would have done. She is more than qualified and has enough star power to overcome any gop bull!@#$. I kind of feel that Obama is just the opening act to something even better with Hillary. And part of me wants her to wipe the floor with whoever the neo cons can come up with. First they lose to a black muslim and then Hillary! Talk about adding insult to injury.:grin:
I am not the greatest fan of her policies especially wrt to militarism, though I am very impressed by her capabilities. I think she would probably be very similar to Obama in policies and I would settle for that. Another 8 years after Obama's four and one or more of the Repubs on the S. Ct might retire and we could get rid of their baby Citizens United and direct control of elections and politicians by the .01%. Without ridding ourselves of Citizen's United we cannot for instance ever slow down the end of civilization i.e climate change as the industry industry goes totally out to confuse the public with propaganda and buy politicians to defend their right to make money by burning fossil fuels.
Then who is? Also, stop moving the goalpost. The last time it was all about Hillary voters going to McCain. So which is it? BTW, the book Game Change, written by people who had direct backstage access to each campaign, insists that no offer was made to Hillary in exchange for her endorsement, pissing off many of her allies including Bill Clinton. No quid pro quo at ALL according to the people that were there, but maybe you know something they don't. To be fair to your position, I thought Hillary was offensive in the primary, waited far too long to drop out, did damage to the party in doing so, and her concession speech was not good. Obama appointed her to follow in the footsteps of Lincoln (a cabinet of enemies) because he knew she'd do a great job. He was right. And the fact that acted like a mean dick of a politician in another campaign is not unusual and it doesn't disqualify her from future campaigns (even if I did say at the time I would never, ever forgive her or vote for her).
